| Literature DB >> 28824816 |
Shane Chanpimol1,2, Bryant Seamon2,3, Haniel Hernandez2,3, Michael Harris-Love3,4,5, Marc R Blackman6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motion capture virtual reality-based rehabilitation has become more common. However, therapists face challenges to the implementation of virtual reality (VR) in clinical settings. Use of motion capture technology such as the Xbox Kinect may provide a useful rehabilitation tool for the treatment of postural instability and cardiovascular deconditioning in individuals with chronic severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a Kinect-based VR intervention using commercially available motion capture games on balance outcomes for an individual with chronic TBI. The secondary purpose was to assess the feasibility of this intervention for eliciting cardiovascular adaptations.Entities:
Keywords: Intervention; Physical therapy; Traumatic brain injury; Virtual reality; Xbox kinect
Year: 2017 PMID: 28824816 PMCID: PMC5560163 DOI: 10.1186/s40945-017-0033-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Physiother ISSN: 2057-0082
Study timeline and assessment schedule
| Phase (weeks) | Week | Gameplay/Activity Assessment | Balance Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 0–13 | 0 | 7, 1 assessment per 2 weeks |
| Intervention | 14–21 | 15, 2 sessions per week | 5, 1 assessment per 1.5 weeks |
| Retention | 22–26 | 0 | 5, 1 assessment per 1.5 weeks |
Mean scores of repeated measures for balance outcomes by phase
| Phase | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Baseline (SD) | Intervention (SD) | Retention (SD) |
| DGI | 11.8 (0.4) | 16.2 (2.3) | 19 (0.0) |
| FRT (cm) | |||
| Both | 28.9 (2.9) | 28.9 (1.9) | 26.9 (1.6) |
| Left | 37.0 (2.3) | 36.8 (1.0) | 34.7 (1.4) |
| Right | 36.6 (1.9) | 37.5 (2.0) | 36.0 (2.0) |
| EPE (%) | |||
| Front | 67.3 (10.2) | 69.9 (6.5) | 80.2 (10.5) |
| Right | 69.4 (6.1) | 70.5 (8.6) | 70.0 (2.9) |
| Back | 74.1 (5.4) | 84.6 (13.0) | 78.1 (9.6) |
| Left | 75.0 (5.7) | 79.3 (12.1) | 73.5 (6.8) |
| MXE (%) | |||
| Front | 98.5 (8.6) | 99.7 (5.3) | 107.0 (3.8) |
| Right | 94.2 (6.9) | 98.7 (6.3) | 100.4 (2.9) |
| Back | 100.1 (7.6) | 108.3 (7.2) | 106.6 (10.7) |
| Left | 99.8 (8.5) | 101.8 (7.8) | 107.0 (6.7) |
| DCL (%) | |||
| Front | 67.33 (5.8) | 74.2 (4.8) | 67.5 (7.5) |
| Right | 55.02 (11.3) | 66.8 (8.6) | 64.2 (9.4) |
| Back | 50.5 (8.6) | 59.1 (3.0) | 60.5 (10.4) |
| Left | 68.3 (4.3) | 73.1 (3.6) | 68.5 (4.5) |
DGI dynamic gait index, FRT functional reach test EPE end-point excursion, MXE maximal excursion, DCL directional control
Description and potential progression of supervised game play during clinical VR intervention
| Mini-(Game) | Game Objective | Areas Challenged | Level Progression | Environmental Progression |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arctic Punch (SU) | Requires participant to punch across the body to hit targets | Cardiovascular endurance, postural control within stationary BOS, UE/LE movement speed/accuracy | Increase movement speed | Stand feet together, one foot, or on compliant surface |
| Knee Up Splash (SU) | Requires participant to break blue, green, and red watermelons with high knee motion in a predetermined order | Cardiovascular endurance, dynamic postural control, UE/LE movement speed/accuracy, memory | Increase length of colors to memorize based on performance, Increase movement speed | Perform on compliant surface |
| Squat Me to the Moon (SU) | Requires participant to perform bodyweight squats emphasizing depth | LE anaerobic endurance, postural control within stationary BOS, LE movement speed/accuracy | Increase movement speed | Perform on compliant surface |
| Stunt Run (SU) | Requires participant to run in place and jump, duck, or dodge left or right to avoid random obstacles | Cardiovascular endurance, dynamic postural control, LE movement speed/accuracy, reaction time | Obstacles occur more frequently based on performance | N/A |
| To the Core (SU) | Requires participant to rotate trunk left and right with shoulders and elbows flex to 90° | Abdominal anaerobic endurance, postural control within stationary BOS, abdominal movement speed/accuracy | Increase movement speed | Stand feet together, one foot, or on compliant surface |
| Tennis (KS) | Requires participant to perform overhead serve, forehand, and backhand rebound against computer opponent | Dynamic postural control, visual tracking, UE/LE movement speed/accuracy, reaction time | Requires maintained accuracy at increased speed based on performance | N/A |
| Rock climbing (KS) | Requires participant to reach and grab overhead and to sides in race against computer opponent | Postural control within stationary BOS, UE movement speed/accuracy | Requires maintained accuracy at increased speed based on performance | Perform on compliant surface |
SU Shape-up, KS Kinect Sports, BOS base of support, UE upper extremity, LE lower extremity, N/A not applicable
Clinical balance outcome results of chi-square analysis and corresponding effect sizes across study phases for clinical balance outcomes
| Baseline - Intervention | Intervention - Retention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| FRT | ||||
| Both | 0.04 | 0.00 (0.0) | 0.11 | -1.07 (-36.0) |
| Right | 1.00 | 0.50 (19.1) | 0.11 | -1.51 (-43.0) |
| Left | 1.00 | -0.17 (-6.7) | 0.29 | -0.66 (-25.0) |
| DGI | ||||
| 0.001 | 2.95 (49.8) | 0.03 | 1.23 (39.0) | |
d, Cohen’s d effect size, FRT function reach test, DGI dynamic gait index
Fig. 1Dynamic gait index (DGI) scores across phases with celeration line analyses. Two-standard deviation (2 SD) celeration line was used for chi-square analysis between baseline and intervention phases as no trend present in baseline phase. The celeration line was carried through the retention phase for Chi-square analysis due to presence of upward trend in intervention phase
NeuroCom limits of stability results of chi-square analysis and corresponding effect sizes across study phases
| Baseline - Intervention | Intervention - Retention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| EPE | ||||
| Front | 1.00 | 0.29 (11.4) | 1.00 | 1.18 (38.8) |
| Right | 0.04 | 0.16 (6.4) | 0.11 | -0.07 (-2.8) |
| Left | 0.07 | 0.48 (18.4) | 1.00 | -0.59 (-22.2) |
| Back | 0.02 | 1.14 (37.3) | 0.01 | -0.57 (-21.6) |
| MXE | ||||
| Front | 1.00 | 0.17 (6.7) | 0.29 | 1.57 (44.2) |
| Right | 1.00 | 0.30 (11.8) | 0.04 | -0.36 (-14.1) |
| Left | 0.38 | 0.25 (9.9) | 1.00 | 0.71 (26.1) |
| Back | 0.79 | 1.09 (36.2) | 0.11 | -0.18 (-7.1) |
| DCL | ||||
| Front | 0.22 | 1.27 (39.8) | 0.04 | -1.08 (-36.0) |
| Right | 0.79 | 1.14 (37.3) | 1.00 | 0.05 (1.9) |
| Left | 0.22 | 1.19 (38.3) | 0.11 | -1.15 (-37.5) |
| Back | 0.37 | 1.24 (39.3) | 0.29 | 0.19 (7.5) |
d, Cohen’s d effect size, EPE end-point excursion, MXE maximal excursion, DCL directional control
Heart rate and activity results of ANOVA and post-hoc testing across intervention sub-phase
|
|
| x (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TAT | 6.74 | .01 | |
| Sub-phase 1 | * | 27.15 (2.59) | |
| Sub-phase 2 | 32.86 (1.91) | ||
| Sub-phase 3 | 30.50 (2.82) | ||
| TTR | 4.19 | .04 | |
| Sub-phase 1 | ^ | 48.88 (7.68) | |
| Sub-phase 2 | ^ | 51.21 (3.67) | |
| Sub-phase 3 | 38.33 (7.80) | ||
| HRe | 29.65 | < .001 | |
| Sub-phase 1 | * ^ | 109.87 (15.74) | |
| Sub-phase 2 | ^ | 102.40 (10.08) | |
| Sub-phase 3 | 93.10 (8.86) |
* - indicates significant difference from sub-phase 2. ^ - indicates significant difference from sub-phase 3. TAT total activity time, TTR time at therapeutic heart rate, HRe exercise heart rate at end of each mini-game
Fig. 2Time spent in therapeutic heart rate range Average time spent at heart rate greater than 40% of heart rate reserve during the 60 min treatment session across Intervention sub-phases
Fig. 3Mean heart rate at end of mini-game (HRe) Average exercise heart rate at the end of each mini-game (HRe) across Intervention sub-phases